Personally I think we should lower it to at least 10K as this could incentivize whales, with multiples of that, to delegate to multiple proposers. And empowering more people with the ability to create a proposal, should lead to more people thinking about what they can do with their new found power.
Note: Lowering the threshold will also speed up the Compound Autonomous Proposal(CAP) process. Which also has a pretty high barrier of requiring 100 COMP ($40k) at the initiators address. Should this be lowered as well?
It might also be helpful to create an RFP for a mechanism to more easily allow for a single address to delegate to an array of addresses instead of having to transfer tokens out.
Potential Dangers:
Spamming the UI: this doesn’t seem like a real threat when 10K COMP = $40M, and most everyone with 10K+ is identifiable. Personally, I think the risk of some graffiti is worth empowering more folks. You can’t have democracy without the occasional Vermin Supreme. And if it ends up being an issue, we should tackle it independently.
Borrowing to submit a proposal: There is a borrowing cap on the Compound CAP market, but there’s not one on the CREAM Comp market. Which currently has 370 available to borrow and ~1000 supplied in total. Which is far less than whats being suggested. If the borrow CAP was removed this could pose a risk, but that risk is at 65k, and it seems like the problem here is that the COMP borrow rate is artificially low(re: positive) due to rewards mining. Which @TylerEther is working on a fix for.
What Should the Proposal Threshold be?
Note: for the purpose of this poll if >50% vote for a lower option will go forward with a proposal to lower.
In addition, it only takes 100 COMP to create an Autonomous Proposal and gather community support for a proposal.
Rather than spending more time on meta-governance (modifying the governance parameters), I am interested to see more protocol-changing proposals–quality ones are likely to garner community support.
Agree that proposal threshold isn’t as much of a barrier but what about quorum @rleshner ? Naturally protocol changing parameters are more interesting than metagovernance but I think lowering quorum could allow governance to be more innovative and active (if those are goals of the community of course)
Yeah, I’m familiar with that thread, there was general support(70%) for 50K, which is why one of the options here is 50k.
If 65K or the CAP was sufficiently low, we wouldn’t have the need or support for creating a whitelist of proposers that bypasses the 65K parameter and the CAP process. → Whitelist of addresses that can create proposals
To put more color on the current threshold, these are the groups who are left out from submitting by not lowering it to at least 50k (one of whom is even on the community multisig). Going down to 10K it’s also all pretty well known delegates.
There’s little risk to allowing more people the ability to make proposals, especially with the gas cost of even simple proposals and the review period in place. So I think the question is why shouldn’t we empower more people? Worse case no new active participants, best case it gets more people thinking about how to use their new found powers.
Also with the CAP, only 70* voting addresses have >100 votes, with most comp being delegated or just being held by speculators. So there really aren’t many people who a)have $45k comp lying around b)know how to submit proposals c)actively participate in comp governance.
@joeysantoro There’s been no issue with proposals reaching quorum, and there’s a whole host of risks that come with a lower quorum. It’s already a $200M quorum in control of $10B in assets. Plus the quorum as percent of circulating supply is getting lowered every day.
I’m in favor of creating multiple timelocks, each with different parameters and powers.
Are all proposals equal in the risks they present? For example, does upgrading the Comptroller have the same level of risk as changing COMP speeds? What about creating a temperature check proposal? All have different levels of risk.
We don’t want governance to slow down our innovation speed or the speed at which we update market parameters as markets shift, but at the same time, governance protects the protocol from possible risks.
The current governance system assumes the risks of all proposals are equal, which is not the case. This can be problematic for both low-risk and high-risk proposals.
What if the current review period should be increased to account for how complex major upgrades to the protocol can be? All other proposals will have to slow down.
What if we wanted to adjust interest rates and COMP speeds on a weekly basis? 2 days to review the proposal and 2 days for voting leaves only 3 days to evaluate the performance of the changes before submitting the next rate adjustment proposal.
Sure, multisigs can and are currently being used for special purposes, but this leads to centralization and potentially less transparency and discussion. Although I believe there may be some use-cases where multisigs are the better option over governance proposals, I think the use of multiple timelocks will significantly improve Compound’s governance overall.
Is the admin of each cToken / Comptroller; multiple Timelocks can’t work in that regard
Supports dynamic delay periods; rather than using multiple Timelock contracts, GovernorBravo could be upgraded to support different queue lengths for different types of actions
Could the admin be changed at all for the pools or is it hardcoded to the Timelock? More forward thinking but it could be cool to allow different types of admin for different parameters.
For example maybe a gauntlet-type could be directly responsible for tweaking certain params like on Balancer V2
